From: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
Janne Karhunen <janne.karhunen@gmail.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] LSM: switch to blocking policy update notifiers
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 07:48:47 +1000 (AEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1906080748010.24873@namei.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhSrjVmnsAuXDmHVmsyDaEF10nsvdxq7VsfCsh=NfaOMQg@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 8:45 PM James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Jun 2019, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:05 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> > > > On 6/5/2019 9:51 AM, Janne Karhunen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One hook with an added "bool blocking" argument, if
> > > > that's the only difference?
> > >
> > > I think there is value in keeping a similar convention to the notifier
> > > code on which this is based, see include/linux/notifier.h.
> >
> > Although this doesn't seem to be what other users in the kernel are doing.
>
> How many of them potentially have the need for both blocking and
> non-blocking notifiers? I didn't go through the entire list of
> callers, but it seems all that I looked at used only one type. The
> simple fact that we started with one type of notifier for the LSM, and
> we are now switching to the other (and getting lucky that it is safe
> to do so for the existing callers) seems to lend some weight to the
> argument we may need both and adding "block"/"blocking"/etc. to the
> name has value.
Fair enough.
--
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-07 21:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-05 8:36 [PATCH 1/2] LSM: switch to blocking policy update notifiers Janne Karhunen
2019-06-05 8:36 ` [PATCH 2/2] ima: use the lsm policy update notifier Janne Karhunen
2019-06-06 21:59 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-06-06 22:28 ` Mimi Zohar
2019-06-05 15:23 ` [PATCH 1/2] LSM: switch to blocking policy update notifiers Casey Schaufler
2019-06-05 16:51 ` Janne Karhunen
2019-06-05 17:05 ` Casey Schaufler
2019-06-05 19:14 ` Paul Moore
2019-06-07 0:45 ` James Morris
2019-06-07 5:19 ` Paul Moore
2019-06-07 21:48 ` James Morris [this message]
2019-06-09 17:06 ` Janne Karhunen
2019-06-05 19:15 ` Paul Moore
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-05-31 14:02 Janne Karhunen
2019-06-03 15:57 ` Paul Moore
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LRH.2.21.1906080748010.24873@namei.org \
--to=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=janne.karhunen@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=zohar@linux.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).